Decision of 12 June 2026 issuing a formal notice to the company operating an information service

The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication,

Having regard to Law No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, as amended, on freedom of communication, in particular Articles 1, 3-1, 13, 16 and 42 thereof;

Having regard to Decision No. 2011-1 of 4 January 2011 on the principle of political plurality in radio and television services during election periods;

Having regard to Decision No. 2017-62 of 22 November 2017 on the principle of political plurality in radio and television services;

Having regard to Decision No. 2018-11 of 18 April 2018 of the French Superior Audiovisual Council concerning the honesty and independence of news and programmes contributing thereto;

Having regard to Resolution No. 2024-15 of 17 July 2024 on compliance with the principle of plurality of thought and opinion by service editors;

Having regard to Decision No. 2005-473 of 19 July 2005, as amended and extended, authorising the company operating a news service to use radio spectrum for theoperation of a national television service shown unencrypted via terrestrial digital transmission, initially named ‘i Télé’ and, following Decision No. 2016-680 of 27 July 2016, “CNews”, and Decision No. 2019-582 of 11 December 2019 renewing the authorisation of 19 July 2005;

Having regard to the agreement concluded on 27 November 2019 between the French Superior Audiovisual Council and the company operating a news service, in particular Articles 2-3-1 and 4-2-1 thereof;

Having regard to Decision No. 2024-1153 of 11 December 2024 authorising the company operating a news service to use radio spectrum for the terrestrial digital diffusion, in unencrypted and high-definition mode, of the national television service known as “CNews”;

Having regard to the agreement concluded on 10 December 2024 between the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication and the company operating an information service, in particular Articles 2-3-1 and 4-2-1 thereof;

Having regard to the decision of 24 July 2024 by which the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication issued a warning to the company operating a news service;

Having regard to the letter of 15 January 2026 sent by Reporters Without Borders to the President of the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication requesting a formal notice and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the broadcaster of the television service “CNews”;

Having regard to the email requesting comments sent on 3 February 2026 to the broadcaster of the television service “CNews” and the latter’s reply dated 17 March 2026;

Having regard to the other documents in the file;

Whereas:

On the legal framework:

1. Firstly, under the provisions of Article 1 of the Law of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication: “Communication to the public by electronic means is free. The exercise of this freedom may be restricted only to the extent required, on the one hand, by respect (...) for the plurality of the expression of currents of thought and opinion (...)”. The third paragraph of Article 3-1 of the same Act provides that: “The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication shall ensure the integrity, independence and plurality of the information and programmes provided by such services”. Article 13 of this Act further provides that “the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication shall ensure respect for the plurality of currents of thought and opinion in radio and television programmes, in particular in political and general news programmes”.

2. In its decision in the case of Reporters Without Borders of 13 February 2024 (No. 463162), the Council of State ruled that it follows from these provisions that the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication “has the task of ensuring respect for the plurality of currents of thought and opinion in audiovisual programmes, particularly in news programmes. To this end, it is incumbent upon it to assess whether service providers comply with this requirement, in the exercise of their editorial freedom, by taking into account, across their entire programming, the diversity of currents of thought and opinion expressed by all participants in the programmes shown”.

3. Secondly, following this decision, the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication adopted a resolution on 17 July 2024 specifying that, in order to assess whether service editors comply with the requirement for plurality, it would ensure that the expression of currents of thought and opinion is not affected by a manifest and lasting imbalance, particularly in news programmes and programmes contributing to news coverage, taking into account the contributions of all participants in the broadcast programmes, without this necessarily leading to the categorisation or classification of all on-air contributors in terms of schools of thought or different sensibilities. Article 2 of this decision makes provision for its assessment to be carried out in such a way as to take into account the factors mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Authority shall take into account the variety of subjects or themes addressed on air, the diversity of contributors to the programmes and the expression of a plurality of viewpoints in the discussion of the subjects addressed on air: Account is also taken of compliance with the obligation to ensure the expression of different points of view in the presentation of controversial issues, in accordance with the final paragraph of Article 1 of the decision of 18 April 2018 and the decision of 22 November 2017 on the principle of political plurality in radio and television services, as well as, during election periods, compliance with the decision of 4 January 2011 on the principle of political plurality in radio and television services during election periods. The decision stipulates that this assessment must cover a period of at least one month for services whose programming is devoted to rolling news coverage. Under the provisions of Article 3: “On demand from ARCOM, the broadcaster shall provide the Authority with the information enabling it to verify compliance with this obligation. This information shall relate to the period specified by the Authority”.

4. This decision is consistent with the clarifications subsequently provided by the decision of the Association Cercle droit et liberté of 4 July 2025 (No. 494597) of the Council of State, which issued a verdict stating that “it is incumbent upon ARCOM, when it receives a complaint in this context from a person demonstrating an interest entitling them to do so, to investigate, over a period which, barring exceptional circumstances, must be sufficiently long to enable it to form its assessment, whether its examination reveals any manifest and lasting imbalance with regard to the requirement for plurality in the expression of currents of thought and opinion in radio and television programmes, in particular for news programmes and programmes contributing to the provision of information. In this regard, Arcom must make an overall assessment of the diversity of expression, without having to categorise or classify programme participants in terms of schools of thought and opinion. This review is without prejudice to the rules applicable to the calculation of speaking time for political figures, particularly during election periods, and to the other provisions and stipulations applicable to the services concerned.

5. Thirdly, at its meeting on 24 July 2024, in accordance with the order of the Council of State in its aforementioned decision of 13 February 2024, the Authority reviewed the demand seeking to have the broadcaster of the ‘CNews’ service served with a formal notice to comply with its obligations regarding the plurality of schools of thought and opinion. Taking into account in particular the programmes ‘Face à l’info’, ‘L'Heure des Pros’ and ‘L'Heure des Pros 2’ shown in May 2021, as well as the most recurring topics across the entire schedule for the same period, the Authority considered that, despite the variety of topics covered and the diversity of contributors, many topics, such as violence against the police, the workings of the justice system or the effects of immigration on the functioning of society, were treated in a one-sided manner, with divergent viewpoints remaining very sporadic. Consequently, the Authority issued a warning to the broadcaster and demanded that it exercise the utmost vigilance in future regarding compliance with the requirement for plurality of thought and opinion.

6. Finally, pursuant to the provisions of Article 42 of the Act of 30 September 1986, the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication may issue a formal notice to the operator of a news service to comply with the obligations imposed upon it.

On the procedure and methodological framework:

7. In a letter dated 15 January 2026, Reporters Without Borders submitted a demand to Arcom for a formal notice and the initiation of proceedings for legal sanctions against the broadcaster of the TV channel ‘CNews’. The association notes therein that ‘in view of the diversity of contributors to the programmes, the variety of subjects or themes addressed on air and the expression of a plurality of viewpoints in the discussion of these subjects, but also the obligation to ensure theexpression of different points of view in the presentation of controversial issues, and the obligations arising from the Resolution on Political Plurality ( ... ) the expression of currents of thought and opinion is affected by manifest and persistent imbalances on the ‘CNews’ throughout the period from 1 March to 1 April 2025, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decision on the Plurality of Schools of Thought and Opinion’.

8. By email dated 3 February 2026, Arcom, on the basis of Article 3 of the Resolution of 17 July 2024, requested that the broadcaster provide it with all the information it deemed useful for the investigation of the submission of a case before the court and for the assessment of the plurality of currents of thought and opinion on the “CNews” channel during the month of March 2025. The statement of case submitted by the applicant association was also forwarded to it on that occasion.

9. The broadcaster submitted its observations by letter dated 17 March 2026.

10. In order to investigate the submission of a case before the court, Arcom broadcast a sample of 168 hours of news programmes, comprising the programmes with the highest audience figures. The broadcasts thus covered, during the period in question, all episodes of programmes attracting more than 500,000 viewers on weekdays (‘L’Heure des Pros’, “L’Heure des Pros 2” and “Face à l’info”), those attracting between 400,000 and 500,000 viewers (“La Grande Interview” and “Morandini Live”) and those attracting between 300,000 and 400,000 viewers (“Punchline” every other week, i.e. from 3 to 6 March, from 17 to 20 March and on Monday 31 March 2025). Broadcasting figures also included, at the weekend, the programmes “L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end”, “ L'Heure des Pros Week-end”, “Face à Bock-Côté”, “Face à face”, attracting over 400,000 viewers, and, every other week, “Face à Michel Onfray ’ (broadcasts on 8 and 22 March 2025) and ‘Le Grand Rendez-vous’ (broadcasts on 9 and 23 March 2025), attracting between 300,000 and 400,000 viewers, as well as ‘Punchline Week-end’ (broadcasts of 7 and 21 March 2025), attracting between 200,000 and 300,000 viewers.

11. As part of its broadcast review, the Authority identified, within each programme, the various topics addressed in succession, focusing in particular on analysing, as of the comments made by the participants, the views expressed and whether or not there was any contradiction between them. Each topic was assigned to the category in theInternational Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) classification to which it was primarily related (for example, ‘politics and institutions’, ‘crime and justice’). For the purposes of the analysis, the topics were also grouped at a more granular level, based on the common current affairs themes to which they related (such as ‘security’, ‘the Ukraine-Russia conflict’, ‘Franco-Algerian relations’).

12. Furthermore, the Authority notes that, as part of the review it conducted on 11 June 2025 regarding compliance with political plurality during the first quarter of 2025, it did not find any significant breach of this principle on the television channel “ CNews”.

Regarding the analysis:

13. It is apparent from the 168 hours of programmes viewed that the two IPTC categories ‘politics and institutions ’ and ‘crime and justice’ were the most frequently covered, having been addressed 263 and 243 times respectively, representing approximately half of the occurrences across all categories identified by the Authority’s services. Next come the categories “conflicts and wars”, covered 128 times, “society and values”, “culture and media” and “religion and belief”. As for the main themes, five of them dominated the news coverage on the service’s airwaves in March 2025: these were “security”, “the Ukraine-Russia war”, “La France insoumise (LFI)”, “Franco-Algerian relations” and “political life”.

14. With regard to the coverage of these five main themes, on the one hand, a sequence-by-sequence analysis of the comments made by all the speakers reveals that, in most cases, there is broad convergence in the views expressed. It thus appears that, in more than three-quarters of the segments, including those featuring sets with panels of multiple participants, either the various panellists express, with a few nuances, the same point of view, or that views diverging from the one mainly defended by the other panellists remain isolated and are even, in some cases, dismissed. Furthermore, the repetition of the same comments and opinions can be observed across the various segments addressing the same topic, to an extent that reflects, on that topic, the over-representation of a particular school of thought and opinion, with other perspectives and opinions present in the public debate being represented only rarely and, in any event, not in proportions or under conditions capable of redressing the observed imbalance.

15. Thus:

• on security: the coverage of this regularly addressed topic (around 10% of topics), mainly in connection with news items on violence or crime, has most often resulted in a broad convergence of the views expressed, as well as a very marked repetition, from one segment to the next, the same comments and opinions, with other perspectives and opinions present in the public debate receiving little or no opportunity to be expressed. According to an assessment carried out by the Authority, this convergence is observed in more than three-quarters of the instances of this topic. With regard to the opinions expressed, many segments on this topic highlighted the existence of a threat whose significance is allegedly systematically underestimated by institutions and the media. Many statements also established, without being challenged by an alternative viewpoint, close causal links between violence or crime and immigration, whilst strongly condemning the failure of the authorities to fight against Islamism and maintain public order (see, for example, the programmes ‘Morandini Live’ of 13, 19 and 21 March 2025, ‘Face à Bock-Côté’ on 15 March 2025, ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ on 16 March 2025 and ‘L’Heure des Pros week-end’ on 29 March 2025). As a result, the on-air coverage of this topic is largely one-sided;
• on the war between Ukraine and Russia: this regularly covered topic (around 10% of topics) most often gave rise to the expression of largely convergent viewpoints, with this convergence observed, according to Arcom’s assessment, in more than three-quarters of instances. A very marked repetition of the same comments and opinions from one segment to the next is also observed. Studio discussions thus frequently questioned the European Union’s role in relation to the conflict, whilst the role of other international actors, particularly the United States, was given greater prominence. Similarly, the French government’s handling of the war was strongly criticised from two recurring angles. On the one hand, by criticising the financial aid granted to Ukraine on the grounds that there were more pressing issues such as security, immigration, Islamism or France’s economic situation. On the other hand, by presenting the government’s statements on international policy as unduly alarmist and likely to exploit a sense of fear among the French population, even though this conflict does not pose a real threat to France, unlike domestic security issues deemed a priority in light of rising immigration, which is said to be a source of increasing crime and the Islamisation of certain sections of society (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end’ of 7 March 2025 and ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ of 11 and 14 March 2025). This coverage has, for the most part, left no room for the expression of alternative perspectives. It is, consequently, largely one-sided;
• regarding La France insoumise: according to Arcom’s assessment, this topic—often discussed in connection with the National Rally and anti-Semitism (around 10% of topics)—resulted in a strong convergence of viewpoints in more than three-quarters of instances. The very marked repetition, from one segment to the next, of the same comments and opinions is also observed, with the on-air coverage of this topic thus proving, for the most part, unambiguous. La France insoumise, its members and the party’s positions were thus the subject of particularly fierce criticism, with no significant counter-arguments. Furthermore, the issue of anti-Semitism was frequently framed as a contrast between La France insoumise, portrayed as fostering it, and the Rassemblement National, portrayed as the political party most concerned with protecting France’s Jewish community (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ of 12 and 24 March 2025, “Face à l’info” on 12 and 26 March 2025 and “L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end” on 29 March 2025);
• on Franco-Algerian relations (around 7% of all topics): according to the assessment carried out by Arcom, more than three-quarters of the instances of this topic gave rise to a high degree of convergence in viewpoints. The marked repetition, from one segment to the next, of the same comments and opinions is observed mainly in relation to the executive’s actions, due to positions perceived as insufficiently firm or consistent. This suggests a form of complacency towards Algeria, particularly in light of the difficulties encountered in cooperating with that state regarding the enforcement of orders to leave French territory (OQTF). In the vast majority of cases, this perspective is not counterbalanced by the expression of other viewpoints (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end’ of 7 March 2025, “Face à Michel Onfray” on 22 March 2025, and “Face à Bock-Côté” on 29 March 2025). The result is a largely one-sided treatment of this topic.

A predominantly one-sided treatment is similarly observed with regard to the topic of political life, which, according to an assessment carried out by the Authority, to a convergence of views expressed in more than three-quarters of the segments relating to this topic and to the marked repetition, from one segment to the next, of the same comments and opinions, relating in particular to the prioritisation of public policy, which is alleged not to take sufficient account of internal security challenges and to exploit fears linked in particular to the war in Ukraine, or the role of the European Union, addressed mainly from a perspective that calls into question the legitimacy and effectiveness of its actions (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros Week-end’ of 9 March 2025, ‘Face à l’info’ of 13 March 2025, ‘L’Heure des Pros’ of 3 March 2025 and ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ of 6 March 2025).

16. With regard to topics relating to the Muslim faith, immigration, the workings of the justice system and the sentence imposed on a politician, whilst these appeared less frequently during broadcast than the previous topics, the analysis shows that they are regularly addressed, even when the debate focuses primarily on other topics, fuelling the comments relating to them:

• the Muslim faith: this topic was raised on numerous occasions, with Islam frequently invoked as an explanatory factor in the coverage of news items and legal developments. Generally speaking, discussions on set regularly presented this religion, without any real contradiction, as a threat to French society, the significance of which is underestimated in public debate (see, for example, the programmes ‘Face à Bock-Côté’ of 15 and 29 March 2025, and ‘Morandini Live’ of 19 March 2025);
• immigration: this topic was frequently addressed in the context of debates on security, crime and the functioning of the justice system, as well as in connection with the topic of the Muslim religion. The frequently expressed view that immigration is a key factor in rising insecurity, necessitating a tightening of public policy on migration, was rarely challenged or qualified during the various segments (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end’ on 7 and 30 March 2025, ‘Face à l’info’ on 20 March 2025 and ‘L’Heure des Pros’ on 28 March 2025);
• the functioning of the justice system: regularly raised in the context of coverage of various court cases, this topic often gave rise to comments criticising judges, notably on the grounds that they lacked democratic legitimacy and were sentencing certain public figures without evidence for ideological reasons. Analysis of the segments relating to the legal cases that dominated the news during March 2025 also reveals a clear over-representation, amongst the various arguments presented, of certain cases or arguments (see, for example, the programmes ‘Morandini Live’ of 17 March 2025, ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ of 27 and 31 March 2025 and ‘Face à l’info’ of 31 March 2025);
• the sentence imposed on a politician in the case concerning the National Rally’s European parliamentary assistants: regarding this case, which received extensive coverage, the discussions on set focused mainly on the judicial procedure, the court ruling and its political consequences, particularly in view of the upcoming elections. The sentence of this politician was notably presented as a “denial of democracy” and a form of “judicial coup d’état”. In this regard, the Authority recalls that, by decision of 16 July 2025, it firmly summoned the publisher to exercise greater vigilance in complying with obligations relating, in particular, to the measured and rigorous handling of an ongoing legal case concerning media coverage of the National Rally trial on 31 March 2025. On that occasion, it had noted that several clips, shown notably in the programmes ‘Morandini Live’ and ‘Midi News’, highlighted, without restraint or moderation, the allegedly unjust, or even illegal, nature of the disqualification order handed down, presenting it as the result of a “judicial conspiracy”. Generally speaking, the coverage of this case was characterised by a largely one-sided approach, with the same angles of analysis being repeatedly employed, without ensuring, to a degree sufficient to counterbalance this imbalance, the expression of differing viewpoints (see, for example, the programmes “L’Heure des Pros 2 week-end” of 29 March 2025, ‘L'Heure des Pros week-end’ of 30 March 2025, and ‘L'Heure des Pros’, ‘L'Heure des Pros 2’ and ‘Face à l'info’ of 31 March 2025).

17. The absence of any real contradiction with the majority opinion is also evident in the broadcaster’s coverage of other news items, such as the tragedy in Crépol (see, for example, the programmes ‘Face à l’info’ of 17 and 18 March 2025, ‘L’Heure des Pros 2’ of 17 March 2025, ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 week-end’ of 21 March 2025 and ‘L’Heure des Pros week-end’ of 22 March 2025), the channel’s coverage of this case during numerous programmes shown between 17 and 24 March 2025, which, incidentally, led the Authority to issue a formal notice to the broadcaster, by a decision of 25 February 2026, to comply with its obligation to exercise rigour and honesty, and to present the various arguments at stake in the context of reporting on ongoing judicial procedures. This one-sided coverage also concerned topics relating to women’s rights, feminism and sexist and sexual violence (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 Week-end’ of 7 March 2025, “L'Heure des Pros week-end” of 9 March 2025, “Face à l'info” of 10 March 2025, “L'Heure des Pros” of 26 March 2025, “L'Heure des Pros 2” of 27 March 2025 and “L'Heure des Pros 2 week-end” of 29 March 2025).

18. In addition to the largely unambiguous nature of the coverage of each of these current affairs topics in March 2025, a comparison of the comments and opinions expressed reveals, more generally, the predominance of a single framework for interpreting current affairs, characterised by a focus, through issues of internal security, on the threat that immigration and Islam allegedly pose to French society, the questioning—particularly on these issues—of the actions of the executive and the European Union, and a strong distrust of the judiciary, as well as systematic criticism of the La France insoumise party, which, over the period in question, resulted in the over-representation of a single school of thought and opinion compared to other perspectives and opinions also present in the public debate.

19. The Authority has also paid close attention to the way in which the debates were organised, as well as to the respective roles and influence of the various participants in shaping their dynamics. Whilst these arrangements fall within the service’s editorial freedom, it appears in this case that they contribute to a largely one-sided treatment of current affairs and to the marked promotion of a single school of thought and opinion.

20. On the one hand, the presentation and contextualisation of the facts often appear secondary compared to the prominence given to their commentary on set. Indeed, it is clear from the footage viewed that the on-air coverage of current affairs relies predominantly on the organisation of debates taking the form of an exchange of views as of the brief presentation of the facts. Among the participants, the channel’s regular commentators, who are summoned to speak on a wide variety of subjects, often play a more prominent role than ‘external’ guests appearing in a capacity of specific expertise on a particular topic. This is particularly the case in programmes such as ‘Morandini Live’, ‘L’Heure des Pros’ or ‘Punchline’, during which the facts underlying the choice of topic are briefly mentioned before becoming the subject of often particularly strong opinions expressed by the various participants. In the absence, more often than not, of a genuine plurality of viewpoints, the discussions essentially serve to reinforce a specific interpretation of events, with the result that the coverage of current affairs tends to merge with its largely one-sided commentary.

21. Furthermore, broadcasting the programmes reveals that, on sets generally composed of panellists who broadly share the same views, the main presenters themselves frequently take a stance on the topics discussed, whilst limiting the speaking time granted to panellists who qualify the remarks or defend a different opinion, or by reacting in ways that dismiss their views as irrelevant (see, for example, the programmes ‘L’Heure des Pros 2 week-end’ of 21 March 2025, ‘L'Heure des Pros’ of 5 March 2025 and ‘Morandini Live’ of 17 March 2025). Furthermore, many programmes, particularly those with the highest weekday viewing figures, open with an editorial from the presenter. However, broadcasts revealed that, in many cases, the opinion expressed during this opening statement set the direction and general tone of the subsequent debate, with the commentators primarily acting as a relay or echoing the positions he had set out (see, for example, the programmes “L’Heure des Pros” of 3, 6 and 17 March 2025 and “Punchline” of 5 and 18 March 2025). Editorials also shaped the prevailing perspective in the subsequent news programmes shown throughout the day (see, for example, the ‘L’Heure des Pros’ programmes of 3 March 2025 and its editorial, followed by the ‘Punchline’ and ‘L'Heure des Pros 2’ on the same day; the ‘L'Heure des Pros’ programme of 6 March 2025 and its editorial, followed by the ‘Morandini Live’, ‘Punchline’ and ‘Face à l'info’ programmes on the same day). The specific role of the presenters, who tend to position themselves as the arbiters of the viewpoint to be adopted on the topic under discussion, thus contributes to the one-sided treatment of current affairs and the over-representation of a single school of thought and opinion.

22. In its observations, the broadcaster points to a large number of contributors with varied profiles from different backgrounds and maintains that it has addressed the main current affairs topics whilst ensuring that a plurality of opinions is expressed. In this regard, the publisher cites a large number of transcripts of contributions intended to illustrate the expression of a plurality of viewpoints on various subjects such as the so-called Crépol affair, the sentence imposed on a politician in the parliamentary assistants’ affair, Franco-Algerian relations and the war in Ukraine. It also highlights an automated tally of arguments by theme, which, according to it, shows, for example, that coverage of the war in Ukraine gave rise to the expression of more than 550 distinct ‘ideas/opinions’ on ‘CNews’ in March 2025. However, these observations do not serve to contradict the previous findings. On the one hand, the quantitative data cited regarding the diversity of ideas and opinions expressed are not substantiated. On the other hand, beyond the diversity of topics and contributors he highlights, as well as the arguments or opinions occasionally noted, the publisher does not provide sufficiently precise and substantiated evidence regarding the expression, on the main current affairs topics, of genuinely different viewpoints presented during the period in question in proportions and in ways that would counterbalance the prominence given to the school of thought and opinion described above.

In conclusion, with regard to the manifest and persistent imbalance in the expression of currents of thought and opinion

23. Without prejudice to compliance with the other provisions and stipulations applicable to the service in question, particularly regarding the accuracy and independence of information, the requirement for a plurality in the expression of currents of thought and opinion does not preclude the existence of an editorial line that distinguishes this service in its treatment of information; it therefore does not preclude a news service from choosing to give greater coverage to certain topics as part of its overall coverage of various areas of current affairs, nor from devoting significant airtime in its programming, as pronounced by the Council of State in its aforementioned decision of 13 February 2024, to debate programmes; nor does it imply a balanced representation, especially in every programme, particularly debate programmes, of the diversity of schools of thought and opinion that may exist in the public debate on the topics addressed therein, nor does it in any way aim to, or have the effect of, disqualifying the on-air expression of any particular school of thought or opinion; on the contrary, its purpose is to promote the expression of the diversity of viewpoints and sensibilities that exist within society. This requirement is, however, as noted in points 2 to 4, opposed to structural imbalances in the expression of viewpoints leading to the manifest over-representation of a single school of thought and opinion across the entire programming.

24. However, Arcom’s analysis of the programmes shown during March 2025 on the ‘CNews’ channel highlights, beyond the diversity of the topics covered and the contributors, the frequent absence of a plurality of viewpoints in the coverage of the main topics discussed on air, as well as the overall predominance of a single framework for interpreting current affairs and a single school of thought and opinion. Whilst falling within the scope of the service’s editorial freedom, the manner in which current affairs are covered on set contributes in this instance to this largely univocal perspective on current affairs, due in particular to the predominance and structuring role of the main presenters’ viewpoint in the numerous debates broadcast, the strong representation among guests on set of commentators who often echo the main viewpoint, and the prominence of commentary over the presentation of facts.

25. The result is a clear and persistent imbalance which constitutes a breach by the broadcaster of the obligation to respect the plurality of currents of thought and opinion in the news programmes of the ‘CNews’ channel during the month of March 2025.

26. Consequently, the company operating a news service must be formally notified to comply, in future, with the requirement for the plurality of currents of thought and opinion arising from Articles 1, 3-1 and 13 of the Act of 30 September 1986, under the conditions set out in the decision of 17 July 2024.

Having deliberated,

Resolves:

Art. 1. - The company operating an information service is hereby given formal notice to comply, in future, with regard to the ‘CNews’ television service, with the requirement for plurality in the expression of currents of thought and opinion arising from Articles 1, 3-1 and 13 of the Act of 30 September 1986, under the conditions set out in the decision of 17 July 2024.

Art. 2. - This decision shall be notified to the company operating a news service and published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.

Done at Paris, 12 June 2026

For the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication:

The President,

Mr AJDARI